1S«.>'? 



(;i,i:A\IN(iS IN I5KE Cl'I/rURE. 



81 



SUGAR VS. HONEY. 



Tin: ( oMiKi 1 HON tu-- < iii.ai' .-^i i.ai;. .ii;i,i,ii;s. 



AM> OIIIKI! l)i:i,l(A( IK.s. (IN lloNKV: 

 lUSCKlMlN A riN(; I.KOISI.ATION 



A(iAiNsT Tin: ni:i;- 



KKKl'Kl!. 



Tli<> idea lias hccii .■Jmcral tiiiics a(lvaiic(>(l. in 

 Ihc.sc rolumnsaiul clscwiicii'. iliat olK^ap siifiai' 

 doi's not in any \va\ ounit" into i'onip<'titioii witli 

 coiiil) lioiu'V. and iliat it is only llic clicapcr 

 graiii's of cxtiai'ttHi lioiu\v that siilTci- from sncli 

 competition. I think both of these opinions in'e 

 fallaeioiis. as a little study of tli(> (piestion will 

 show. I'eojjle do not iisnaljy eat honey simply 

 because it »V hoiiev. Some eat it simply because 

 it is one of the family of sweets for all of which 

 they have a natural craving. This craving can 

 be satistied Just as well with sugai'. or some 

 sweet made from it. as with honey, (ienerally 

 honey is oaten because it is a palatable table 

 sauce, a pleasant addition to the bread and 

 butter and other articles of food. In this direc- 

 tion it has many rivals. 



Ditl you never, as you sat at the table, hesi- 

 tate' as to whether you would take jelly, honey. 

 or plum preserves'.' Or. perhaps it was a nice 

 dish of cranbeiri<'s or other stewed or canned 

 fruit, or any of the long line of similar delica- 

 cies that divided your liking. Just as you hes- 

 itated, the housekeeper hesitates in furnishing 

 her table, anil in making her choice, if she is 

 thrifty and careful— and generally she is: she is 

 influenced largely by considerations of economy. 



When honey is plentiful and cheap, she may 

 buy of it freely and often: but when it is scarce 

 and high, as we well know to our sorrow, she 

 selects something else to iill its place. When 

 sugar is cheap she puis u]j large quantities of 

 fruit, with jams and jellies galore. Witli all 

 this array of good things ui)Oii her pantry- 

 slielves she does not see any ne(>d of buying 

 honey, unless very occasioiuilly. just as a change. 

 If she is not of the providing kind her family 

 are not allowed to suffer. In every grocery 

 store sh<^ may find a tempting array of jellies 

 and of fruit butters at astonishingly low prices: 

 and since sugar has taken the place of th(^ 

 gluco.se that was formerly a chief ingredient of 

 very fair quality, the growtli of the trade in 

 such articles has Immmi enormous of late, and no 

 doubt will continue. 



One has only to visit some of the groceries 

 where they ladli' their jellies and fruit butters 

 out of barrels, when, only two or three years 

 ago. a few half-pint tumblers constituted their 

 entire stock of such articles, to realize that here 

 is our most foiTuiilable rival. 



Honey is called a lu.vury. and must be .so con- 

 sidered: but by comparing the sales at the dif- 

 ferent classes" of groceries I have discovered 

 what seems at tirst sight a little peculiar. It is 

 not the rich nor yet what arc called the upper 

 middle classes that use tin; most honey in pro- 

 portion to their nnmber.s, l>ut those who are 

 only in comfortable circumstances, the families 

 of artisans and laborers. The foi'mer. with 

 tlieir stores of table delicacies laid up. or readi- 

 ly procurable, have felt no need of buying honey 

 but get it only as the fancy siiikes them. The 

 latter, living more •• from hand to mouth." must 

 buy such things as they are needed. Often in 

 their search for sweets for the table they have 

 found h(»ney as the only competitor to the sugar 

 and mola.sses baiTols. But witii cheaj) sugar, 

 that is l)eing changed: and a great variety of 

 fruit preparations are for sale at low prices. 

 This competition will.nodoubt.be stimulated, 

 and bi'come stronger. We do not perceive its 

 full etlects yet. because of the scarcity of our 

 product. But let a large crop of honey be put 



upon our markets, and we slK>nld speedily see 

 to what I'Xtenl we have been injur(>d Ity dis- 

 criminating legislation. 



The same inlluences that alfecl the sale of 

 comb honey are also operative against the .sale 

 of extfacli'd honey i'or table use. It is in anoth- 

 er direction, however, that we have most to 

 fear. Within the past three or four years the 

 use of honey in the arts has beiui much extcnd- 

 (>d. Now. just as we are congratulating onr- 

 .selves on the market thus gained, comes the 

 unwelcome m-ws that the cheaper sugar is be- 

 ing substituted for the honey. Now. even 

 though it be true that only the poorer qualities 

 of honey have been thus supplanted, this can 

 not fail to have an elTecton the general market. 

 When the outlet has been cfo.sed for these 

 grades of honey they must seek a market (>lse- 

 where. In doing this they must come into 

 competition with other (|u"aiities. and tend to 

 force their prices down. It is said, that no par- 

 ticle of matter, however minute, can change its 

 position without affecting the entire iiniver.se. 

 So every pound of honey placed upon tin; gen- 

 eral market must affect in some degree the 

 price of all honey sold. So. too. the government 

 can not interfere with the natural ciianiu'ls of 

 trade in any industry witliout affecting to some 

 extent all others. In this case we are the ones 

 who are pincluHi. Of course, we squeal. We 

 ought to. Let the bounty on sugar be removed, 

 or let us receive a bounty and so pass the bur- 

 den on to somelx)dy else. 



The point touched upon by A. N. Drajjer on 

 page 13 might be an important one if it were 

 true that the government placed its stamp upon 

 all packages of sugar upon which a bounty is 

 paid. If I am coiTect. it does not do this— cer- 

 tainly not to the extent and with the thorough- 

 ness that it does in the liquor and tobacco busi- 

 ness. I think that, when the producer furnish- 

 es satisfactory proof that he has actually pro- 

 duced a certain amount of sugar, he is paid 

 the bounty, and that ends the matter. I see 

 maple sugar in the stores nearly everyday: but 

 there is nothing about it to indicate whether it 

 came from a Vermont, sugar-camp or a Chicago 

 mixing-establishment. J. A. Gkeen. 



Davton. III.. .Ian. 7. 



A GOVERNMENT BOUNTY 

 HONEY. 



OR TAX ON 



KEASOXS WHY IT WOULD WOKK SILSCIilEF TO 



BEE -keepers; IT WOULD NOT HINDER OR 



PRETEXT ADULTERATION. 



As the subject of a government bounty on 

 honey has been spoken of in Oleanixgs, and a 

 discussion of the subject invited, will you allow 

 me to say a few words in regard to it, and also 

 comment on what was said on page 13 by A. N. 

 Draper? He refers to the connection "Of the 

 government with the I iquor-t rattle as an illus- 

 tration of how a bounty would lielp the honey- 

 business. That the laws of the natioiuil gov- 

 ernment foster and make more powerful the 

 liquor-traftic. there is no reason to doubt; but 

 that it hinders adulteration, we know is not 

 true, but just the reverse. By protecting it for 

 the revenue, it creates a vas£ monopoly; and 

 by taxing the manufacture and sale, it en- 

 hances the price more than fourfold, and con- 

 sequently makes adulteration (when it goes 

 into the retailer's hands) very profitable: when 

 the fact is. that, if it weie not for the tax that it 

 pays, the original liquor would not be more 

 than 2.T cents a gallon for whisky, and at that 

 price there would be no profit iii its adultera- 

 tion. Then, in order to make the liquor and 

 honey business similar, a tax should be put on 



